Rickdogg

iTrader: (234)

Hey guys, if you recall I had a dyno session a while back and was disappointed in the numbers realized, but I saw a lot of room for improvement. Leaning out the AF ratio and the motordyne spacer did wonders! I had TS tune the car some more and the results were staggering!

All dynos were performed at the same dyno facility and is a dynapack system. I know that some will argue that a dynojet is better than a dynapack, but the main reason that I am posting this is to show gains as no one can really argue this. I personally prefer dynapack for more accurate hp readings for gains and tuning.

Here are the results

296.1 HP & 272 TQ Dyno Graph

AF Ratio (AF readings on the graph are 1.0 higher than actual readings)

Dyno Mean Numbers

-ARC Intake
-350evo throttle body
-Crawford Headers
-Helix Test Pipes
-JIC Y-Pipe
-JIC Single Exit exhuast
-Motordyne Plenum Spacer 5/16"
-One Step Colder Plugs
-Sun Cyberspeed Ground System
-UR Pullies
-One Exhaust Leak

The old dyno graphs:

Old Dyno Graph

Old AF ratio

Old Mods:

-ARC Intake
-350evo throttle body
-Crawford Headers
-Helix Test Pipes
-JIC Y-Pipe
-JIC Single Exit exhuast
-One Step Colder Plugs
-Sun Cyberspeed Ground System
-UR Pullies
-2 Exhaust Leaks

Mike Wazowski

iTrader: (113)

That's awesome man.

Hydrazine

iTrader: (53)

Right on Dogg!!

Great HP numbers to pair up with a real track car.

Congrats on the fantastic numbers. You're within reach of the big 300!

ZON

iTrader: (2)

Graphs look mighty tasty and makes me drool.

Congrat's Rickdogg!!

Nano

iTrader: (1)

That's insane with just bolt-ons


Hard to believe it's an old 287hp... you sure you don't have a revvup under there?

Jamaica2G

iTrader: (14)

Impressive green one! (Geico Commercial)

question is - what is a safe AF range? I thought 13 was a good number or lower... but then again, I dont know what the hell Im talking about! (on certain levels)

Enlighten me!

Adrian

Rickdogg

iTrader: (234)

LOL! There are a few other products that should pust me over the hump. There is still some more potential out of our NA motors without going internal

Rickdogg

iTrader: (234)

The AF ratio is hovering in the 13 range. Like stated in my post, the dyno graph plotted the AF ratio one point high across the board

Nismo 350z

Thats flywheel hp Rick. So it looks like around 250 at the wheels. The chart said flywheel hp on top.

Rickdogg

iTrader: (234)

I know that it is the power reading off of the rear hubs. I dyno'd baseline at 242 hp on a dynojet (whp) a long time ago when my car was nearly stock with no ecu, so I doubt that it is 250

atar350

Yeah I am wondering if thats flywheel or wheel, it could be wheel and it says flywheel at the top, but with all those mods I would hope to gain a little more then 10hp at the flywheel lol....the 287hp motor is already old now?? wtf...lol

atar350

So the dyna pack reads with the wheels off right?? I would rather dyno with my wheels on so I know what I am making on the street, what do you think your making at the ground with your wheels on?

Rickdogg

iTrader: (234)

The reading is coming off of the rear hubs as pictured below:



Note it eliminates the variables of tire wear, tire pressure, camber, toe, etc. which can change the readings made by the dyno. Dynapack is the way to go when it comes to tuning to see what power is gained. It is the next best thing besides an engine dyno with the motor removed from the car entirely

ZON

iTrader: (2)

Dude your Z looks like a 911 How much was that mod

Nathan

The New Zealand made Dynapac is a very good dyno for tuning.
It has a flywheel simulation program that is fairly close to accurate, but this flywheel graph should not be compared to a Dynojet RWHP graph.
The Dynopac in flywheel mode would read 15 to 20% higher than a Dynojet

Nismo 350z

Oh ok I see.

ChurchAutoTest

The graph says flywheel no matter whether you apply a transmission correction or not. Dynapack's idea of a transmission correction is a straight percentage. This is applied through the transmission correction factor, or "TCF". Note the box at the bottom of the printout. It says "TCF 1.00". This indicates that no correction was applied. If the TCF was 1.15, then a 15% correction factor would be applied.

At Church Automotive Testing we do not use a TCF other than 1.0 unless specifically requested by a customer (even then we don't like to because it can be used to mislead people).

In our experience, a RWD car loses about 30-35 hp from flywheel to hubs on our dyno. This has been very consistent. FWD cars are in the 25 hp range.

A stock 287 hp Z puts down 255 hp +/- a few on our Dynapack. The 296 put down by RickDogg is a full 40 hp above the average. It is also higher than a E46 M3 with an aftermarket exhaust. It is a full 25+hp above the new 298-300 hp VQ motors.

Shawn Church

zillinois

iTrader: (6)

To what do you attribute the Z's freakishly low drivetrain loss? 255 on a stock VQ is only 11% loss?? IMO, subtract about 6% from the above dyno figures and you're probably spot on to what they are actually making. So 296 x .94 = 278

30hp from a plenum spacer and reflash?

phunk

iTrader: (21)

ChurchAutoTest

Its not a roller dyno - that's why losses are lower. You're not spinning up close to 100 lbs of wheel and tire. On a Dynojet, dropping 5 lbs of wheel and tire weight per side can net you several hp worth of gains since more energy is available to accelerate the dyno rollers. Now imagine dropping it all. On a Dynojet, his car should have been in the high 270's-low 280's hp range to the wheels depending upon wheel weight.

As for the gains, his initial Technosquare tuneup was _way_ off. It was richer than what we'd tune a forced induction car for. He only gained a few hp from the plenum mod (4 hp I think). The rest of the gains from his previous visit were from the vastly improved TS tune.

SC